Yes, the U.S. lost in the same round (Round of 16) as the last
World Cup. They also lost on the same scoreline (2-1), with a
goal in the same exact minute (93rd) as 2010.

But the similarities are only superficial. This World Cup was
what progress looks like for U.S. soccer – slow, incremental,
measured progress that's only visible when viewed over a period
of years.

The results were the same, but the details couldn't be more
different. In 2010 the U.S. barely survived a group that was so
weak
it was labeled E.A.S.Y. (England, Algeria, Slovenia, Yanks).
They lost in the Round of 16 to a mid-tier Ghana team, failing to
score in the run of play and looking so bad initially that
Ricardo Clark was substituted off after 30 minutes.

In 2014, the circumstances were different.

The U.S. was drawn into a group with Germany, Portugal, and Ghana
that some called the
toughest in the tournament. After stealing a game from Ghana,
the U.S. finally played the "American style" that Jurgen
Klinsmann talks so much about against Portugal — bullying one of
the best teams in Europe (or so they're ranked) for long
stretches. In the Round of 16 they lost to a Belgium team that
were such a unanimous dark horse pick that they ceased to be a
dark horse and became a full-fledged favorite months before the
tournament.

There were still elements of the old U.S. style in Brazil.
Against Ghana and Belgium especially, you wouldn't have been able
to separate this American team from the hard-working, technically
limited U.S. teams of the past.

But within the folds of these U.S. performances you saw glimpses
of progress.

You saw 20-year-old DeAndre Yedlin emerge as a right back with
world-class speed.

You saw 19-year-old Julian Green score a goal on his first touch
of the game.

You saw Jermaine Jones score a goal with a level of technique you
rarely see from U.S. players.

You saw a team with enough depth recover after losing its best
forward, Jozy Altidore, in the 23rd minute of the tournament.

You saw, at times, a team that wanted to play more out of the
back more than boot it down field. You saw, at times, the style
that Klinsmann wants to play — a team that's organized
defensively but breaks in numbers and with speed, especially at
the fullback position.

Those good things were all in there, mixed in among the
not-so-good things (namely: the defensive blunders against Ghana
and Portugal, the willingness to sit behind the ball unless they
needed a goal, the lack of creativity in the midfield).

But this year, more than 2010, those good things took up a larger
proportion of what the U.S. was doing overall, considering the
competition.

That is how soccer in America has grown and will continue to
grow. There won't be a single moment, a single game, or a single
goal. There will only be small steps built upon small steps.

This World Cup gave ample reason to think the U.S., under Jurgen
Klinsmann, is headed in the right direction. The challenge now is
to build on the things the U.S. did well here, make progress on
the youth level, and continue toward the long-term goal of
constructing a self-sustaining system that will produce a
national team good enough to win a World Cup.